Talk:Red Rackham's Treasure

Why is Haddock short of funds?
The article now states that Tintin insists that Haddock must purchase the estate, which is up for auction, but the Captain is short on funds due to the wasted expense of their failed treasure hunt. Is this correct according to the Wnglish translation? In the new Swedish translation, which is known to be faithful to the French original, Haddock only says that had he found the treasure, the problem would have been solved, not that he had had the money before the treasure hunt. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. This has been corrected. —Prhartcom   (talk)  13:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

History/Background section moved to main series article
The History/Background section of this article contains well-written text that is truly the history of the entire Adventures of Tintin series. For that reason, this section has been removed from this article and moved to the The Adventures of Tintin article. See the talk page there. —Prhartcom  (talk)  13:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this vandalism, or just ridiculous?
"...suggested that the scene in which the shark submarine pushes between Haddock's buttocks was a form of sexual innuendo referencing anal sex,..."

So if a noted critic makes an absolutely preposterous statement - laughably ridiculous - then it's ok as a reference? So if I can find a reference to an ongoing theme of suppressed homo-erotica between Tintin and Captain Haddock - that would be ok too? Anything goes, so long as it's been published somewhere? That's mad. Jabberwock359 (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm assuming good faith so personally I don't have a problem with it. To me, most literary criticism seems mad but, because I'm not a literary critic, I don't feel qualified to comment. I would say that, unless it's WP:Fringe (which I don't think it is, if well-cited to a respected individual - Tom McCarthy (writer)) it's ok for it to stay IMO... —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , here is a book that discusses homo-erotica between Tintin and Captain Haddock; the author is notable scholar Jean-Marie Apostolidès. I know. If it helps, this literary critic and McCarthy mentioned above are not exactly discussing the characters of Tintin but are using them as a vehicle to do psychoanalysis. It's part of the response to the book so it is included here (they are in the Response section to all well-researched Tintin articles). I personally find it preposterous and so do others, but to meet the GA requirement of "broad in its coverage" the article should include applicable references to all of the ten or so books in the English language discussing Tintin. Thanks for your comment, actually; others may have the same question and can come here to find it. Prhartcom (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I must echo the views of Prhartcom and others; I think it unlikely that Hergé had intended this scene to have a homo-erotic subtext (not that it's impossible), but we have a reputable commentator writing in a reliable source suggesting it, and thus mention of it belongs in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm? thanks, I must remember that reliable sources have reputable idiots!! Jabberwock359 (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Writing a plot summary
Please forgive one edit summary I made in a recent edit to the Plot synopsis, changing another editor's contribution. I did not mean to communicate in the edit summary that "in-universe is good". Far from it, as I understand what is recommended in MOS:PLOT. I meant to revert one change because a) it redundantly mentioned the title of the previous Tintin book in the plot synopsis when we already stated the previous Tintin book in the plot synopsis (in a descriptive sentence that opens the section) and also b) because I believe every plot synopsis can be written without undue reference to the "real world". I believe reference to the real world can and should occur at the beginning of a plot synopsis, especially a story that spans more than one volume or article, as this grounds the plot synopsis that the reader is about to read. But I believe that such reference should be limited to the opening of the plot synopsis section, and should be avoided once the plot synopsis is underway. After the story is underway, I believe a sudden re-mentioning of the real world (certainly in the middle of a paragraph) "breaks character", is a sign of poor writing, and should be avoided. Avoiding it allows the reader to simply focus on the plot and characters for the remainder of the paragraph or section, but again, only after the reader has already been grounded at the beginning of the section. Prhartcom (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , what did you mean on the GA Talk page about possibly needing a footnote? Don't you think the message at the top of the Synopsis is very clear about where the plot belongs in context? Prhartcom (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the current wording (even including the hatnote) doesn't make clear that the following sentence -  - refers to the happenings in a different work. Perhaps it could be more more clear by changing the tense slightly further- "Having previously read three...". Alternatively (or additionally) a note could be added to clarify that this particular point refers to events in another work. The normal method, reflecting (I suspect) the expectation of readers, would be to only outline the plot of this work in the plot section. I can't promise I have a perfect answer to this, but I'm not convinced that the current approach is ideal. (This is a small point- note that I was happy to promote the article with this issue outstanding!) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see now what you mean. And don't worry about how small the point is—in doing the final editing of many of Midnightblueowl's incredibly well-researched and well-written works, I have occasionally been a bit of a perfectionist. The "Having previously read three..." idea is the direction I was trying to go, that is, in a single sentence, restating a key plot point from the previous book so that we can explicitly refer to it in this plot summary. I don't think it can go unsaid and I'm quite certain we can accomplish this without clumsily stating it happened in the last book. I have tried a couple of times to get it right and you have tried once; would you care to insert this phrase and see how it fits? Prhartcom (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wreck
I strongly doubt that the wreck of the Unicorn was based on any pictures of the Vasa as the latter wasn’t recovered until the 1960s. 78.71.246.102 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC) Comment moved from the GA review page. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Rackham
Is Red Rackham the same guy as the pirate Jack Rackham? --91.34.33.227 (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)